Although been unable to read yet – some summaries state Amtrak is eating its assets on the NEC due to underfunding.
http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/823/289/Amtrak-CEO-Boardman-House-T&I-testimony-Dec-13-2012.pdf
This is a general assessment of the current status of the Northeast Corridor Line describing what has been done recently and giving Joe Boardman’s vision of where Amtrak should go.
It begins with the importance of keeping up to date with basic maintenance such as cutting brush and cleaning out drainage ditches. Because these things and similar things were done the recovery from Hurricane Sandy was much faster than it would otherwise have been. It also looks forward to building new Hudson River Tunnels and new track alignments where the tracks are “survey,” particularly along the Shoreline between Providence and New Rochelle. And it predicts 220 mile an hour trains.
Boardman does comment on bridge replacement such as replacing NIantic’s 105 year old bridge. Yet if the new alignment is built the trains using it will bypass Niantic along with every other station in Connecticut.
Clearly the focus for Boardman is the NEC. And you do understand that the new, dedicated ROW for 220 mph service is in addition to the existing route, so CT will continue to be served.
I agree with you, Schlimm. Amtrak intends to continue running trains along the Shoreline Route with all of its curves. However, a new alignment would replace most of the Shoreline. It is possible there could be a station stop in Connecticut south of New Haven.
Amtrak strongly believes that to compete with airlines it must have a 220 mph route between Boston and New York and the only way to get that is to have the new alignment. Frankly, I hate to see New London and New Haven bypassed but I think Amtrak is correct on the issue. And of course New London and New Haven passengers can use the Northeast Regional Service to New York Penn Station and change trains there.
John
Remember Amtrak doesn’t have to nor should serve every station stop between D.C. and Boston or every station on any other route. Boston to Providence to Warwick to New Haven to Stamford with a few others is all that’s needed for them since the other stations are served by commuter or other state agencies. Same west of NYP…Newark, Airport, Metro Park, New Brunswick, Trenton, Philadelphia, Wilmington, Baltimore, BWI Airport, and D.C. should be the main worries for Amtrak here. BUT: there should be an effort by these commuter districts and state agencies and Amtrak to make reasonable (no more than say, 10 minutes) and guaranteed connections where it makes sense.
Amtrak has 75 per cent of the end point air/rail commercial passengers between New York City and Washington. According to his testimony, Boardman want’s to spend $50 billion on the NYC - Washington portion of the NEC to reduce the running time of the Acela between the end points from 2 hours 45 minutes to 2 hours 15 minutes. The $50 billion is before debt service charges, which could double the cost of the upgrades.
Also according to the testimony Boardman recommends spending $100 to $150 billion before debt service to build, as I understand it, a new, high speed railroad for the NEC. According to his testimony, Amtrak now carries more passengers between Boston and NYC than all the airlines combined.
Boardman offered no details on how these improvements are to be funded, other than to use public monies. He alluded to private/public funding partnerships. If the California High Speed Rail Project is any indicator, he is not likely to get many takers from the private sector, other than equipment, materials, and construction entities with the potential to sell their stuff to the project.
If you already have the lion’s share of air/rail travelers between NYC and Washington or NYC and Boston, why should the nation spend more than $400 billion (estimate with inclusion of debt service) to upgrade the existing route or build a new one? Where are the market demand studies that show the need to do so? Or is this about bragging rights?
Why should the nation’s taxpayers agree to a massive investment in the NEC, as opposed to using scarce resources to develop or upgrade other corridors, i.e. Dallas to San Antonio, Chicago to Minneapolis, etc?. Given that Amtrak has a strong footprint in the NEC, providing one overlooks buses and personal vehicles, this does not make a lot of sense. Whoops, who ever said that politics makes sense?
I have often thought that High Speed Rail is over reach for many markets and conditions. First, what is HSR? I am sure everybody has a concept and idea from anything over 80 to 300 mph. It all sounds sexy and glamouous and so, so futuristic. But is is realistic? At what point does the governor cut off the steam and stem the speed for economy, efficeincy, for realism? A third D.C. to NY rail right of way? How expensive is that economically, environmentally, realistically? Or is it all political posturing, saying what wants to be heard by those who govern in populists ways?
Just my reading, but one of Boardman’s justifications for the upgrades in the NEC is capacity related and allowing for future growth. Faster sustained speeds allow for more passenger capacity, as does a second line. He is looking ahead, as he should, not just looking at now or the short term.
You make a good point, Schlimm, one that I even overlooked earlier. So if you gain even 15 minutes say, that means you can fit at least one train for up to 1000 more people to ride in that hour span…
Sam,
What Amtrak does not have is the lion’s share of the traffic between Boston and Washington. That is what Joe Boardman wants. This is off the top of my head but as I understand it the air routes in the northeast are full. If more people can be moved away from flying and to the train between Boston and Washington and Boston and Philadelphia that would free up air space for people taking longer trips.
Also, as I understand it, there is no new alignment proposed between New York and Washington. However, the catenary there was built in the 1930’s or earlier and is inadequate for high speed (220 mph) service.
North of New York there is some work needed too but less. However, north of New York Amtrak wants to build a whole new track that will be fairly straight and avoid the current Shoreline Route that curves along the seacoast. Building an new track, as you might imagine, is the really expensive proposition. Whether Congress will appropriate money for it is the big question.
To my mind repairs and upgrades to the existing system are a lot easer to justify than building a whole new rail line.
John
Yes, Schlimm. Even if the Shoreline route were all state of the art it would not sustain 220 mph. And north of New Haven it is only double tracked which also limits the number of trains. Certainly true high speed to Boston would attract a lot more people going both to New York and south of New York.
John
Boardman: "This new system is needed because the current NEC is simply too congested, with its current fleet of 2,200 daily commuter, freight and intercity trains, and too curvy, with much of its route dating back to the 1850’s, to support this type of high-speed rail service.
As every major high speed system around the world has shown, dedicated tracks and new alignments are necessary to support very high speed trains and to permit the type of frequent and reliable service that has made these services financially successful.
So, taken together, these two programs will both improve the existing NEC for all users [especially commuters he says elswhere], which must be done to protect the existing services and allow near-term growth, while also creating an entirely new high speed service that unlocks the potential of our currently constrained Acela service. While these plans call for a total capital investment in the $100 to $150 billion
range over the next 30 or so years, they will provide America’s most densely-populated and congested region with a transportation alternative designed to accommodate nearly a century of growth."
There is no question but what the line north of New York is curvy. But I am skeptical of the “2200” daily trains. I counted Metro North trains on its New Haven Line. The format of the time table is hard to work with so my figures may not be precise but I was able to count 250 trains each week day. Amtrak runs fewer trains. South of New Haven the line has 4 tracks. Between New York and Washington the line has 4 tracks (although there are 6 tracks in some places). But there is no new alignment beyond the new Hudson River tunnels south of New York.
However, from New Rochelle to New Haven Metro North owns the line and limits the number of Amtrak trains.
I’d have to say this is mostly good new.
Just noticing the Shuster says he’s okay with funding a “good state of repair” for the NEC is a looong way from the old mantra of “privatize it”.
The issue remaining, then, is who, how and when to fund capacity and speed improvements. I’d say Amtrak’s $170M proposal, the FRAs proposal and Shuster’s “money is scarce” statements are just opening gambits.
The Great American Problem has always been coordinating cost with value. They kept the 5 cent rapid transit fares much too long causing the public…and the politicians…to lose the judgement other than in terms of votes.
There are two tracks from Penn to Newark, four south to Wilimington (almost), then three with some stretches of two south of there.
JOHN: I also fault Boardman on that statement as it is very misleading. Only Amtrak goes end to end. You have MBTA, SLE MNRR, NJT, SEPTA, DELEWARE (?), MARC, & maybe VRE -thru the 1st st tunnel (?). Does it count downeasters and MNRR New Rochelle - NH and the branch line trains. Then is Amtrak also counting all the Dead Head moves from terminals to yards ? Some of these trains may only travel a few miles ( feet ?) on Amtrak and if VRE is counted then only on WASH’s station tracks. The Jersey coast lines trains are another.
Short trips of various natures can be handled because the signaling systems are built for very short blocks. Only a detailed traffic density map of each segment of track will let us know where there are choke points.
Maybe so, but you actually think he fudged his numbers? surely he has access to better info than anyone, or almost anyone here.
“Has access to” might be a pretty far distance from “has the numbers”. Certainly the data flow from CETC will allow a unique train count - it has to feed a Federally mandated train sheet. The question is, does Amtrak store this data where people can query it? Don’t automatically assume “yes”.
You would know better than I, but I would think when the CEO asks for numbers, some underling will not embarrass him with fakes ones, on pain of dismissal.